Talk:Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act/Archive 1

Major or minor?
Antaeus and BabyDweezil have suggested that the description "major controversy" should be downgraded to "minor" or have the adjective dropped completely. I have to say that's incorrect - contemporary sources say explicitly that it was a huge controversy. Senators reported receiving more correspondence about it than they'd had about any piece of legislation in the previous 15 years, and the Congressional Quarterly Almanac of 1957 called it "One of the most controversial pieces of legislation tackled by Congress in 1956." I've added the latter citation to the article.

BD's assertion that it was "barely a blip in history" is rather a non-sequitur, I'm afraid; just because it's not well known now, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a big deal at the time. -- ChrisO 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, BabyDweezil's suggestion that without a citation confirming that it was major, we should change the description to claim it as minor still without citation, clearly makes no sense. However, with an appropriate citation such as the one you've added, the adjective "major" is clearly justified.  (though oddly, the New York Times, which called it the "Alaska Mental Aid Bill", seems to have barely noticed it.  I wonder why?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

David Miscavige on Nightline
Transcript and video available at Nightline: A Conversation with David Miscavige, February 14, 1992, interviewed by Ted Koppel

"Mr. MISCAVIGE: Well, okay. And if we're talking about the misuse, fine. In any event, I think any use that ends up killing people is a misuse, and I think that's a hell of a record to have. But let me get back to where I was, because it does tie in. You say the misuse, but I don't know if you're aware that there was a plan in 1955 in this country, Ted, to repeat what was done in Russia. There was going to be a Siberia, U.S.A. set up on a million acres in Alaska to send mental patients. They were going to lessen the commitment laws, you could basically get into an argument with somebody and be sent up there. This sounds very odd. Nobody's ever heard about it. That's in no small part thanks to the Church of Scientology. I must say, though, that when that bill was killed in Congress, the war was on with psychiatry where they declared war on us, and I want you to understand something-"

This very odd moment should somehow make its way into the article - in addition to some sort of clarification/refutation of what actually happened...  Smee 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Heh, nice find. :-) I'll see what I can do... -- ChrisO 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the rest of the transcript or watch the interview, there is a bit more to that discussion. Shows how a certain group may have a distorted take on the facts of the matter...  Smee 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

"Mythology"
I'm no fan of Scientology, but I wonder if the term "mythology" might be replaced with a less seemingly POV term. I know that "mythology" can have several meanings, not all of them pejorative and some of them merely descriptive, but I do wonder whether the casual reader will pick up on that. The pejorative meaning, after all, is the much more common use in modern English. Any reactions to these musings? Hydriotaphia 05:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the term might be appropriate in this case but I've changed it anyhow. What do you think of the new phrasing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great change. I think it's nicely done.  Hydriotaphia 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Article looks very good. Well-written, good citations, provides a very good and concise overview of the topic. The only issue I really had was the scientology banner to the right of the scientology subsection, which was really unnecessary and inappropriate. Such banners should only be used at the top of articles, and this article itself is not strictly a scientology-related article, as there are other issues and other groups that were opposed to the bill. The link to the Church of Scientology article ought to suffice. Other than that, great job! Dr. Cash 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting potential dates for Today's featured article
Anyone have other ideas, good dates for this to be "Today's featured article" ? If so, as the time gets closer, we'll have to look at Today's featured article/requests and Today's featured article and think about providing input there. Cirt 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
 * July 20, 2008 - This would be a neat date, because it would be 52 years to the date since the bill's passage (1956).
 * February 14, 2008 - 16 years to the date since David Miscavige interview on Nightline, where he made the controversial comments: "There was going to be a Siberia, U.S.A. set up on a million acres (4,000 km²) in Alaska to send mental patients. They were going to lessen the commitment laws, you could basically get into an argument with somebody and be sent up there." (1992)
 * More interesting info here: User:Marskell/TFA considerations. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
 * More good info. Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page.  Cirt 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC).


 * I'd suggest January 16, the 51st anniversary of the bill being introduced into Congress. -- ChrisO 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. We'll just have to go to Today's featured article/requests about a little under 4 weeks before then, I'd imagine.  Cirt 08:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC).


 * It would also be nice to have a free-use Wikimedia Commons picture for the top of the article, that would go into the "Today's featured article" blurb. I'm working on trying to get an image of the first page of the Congressional bill itself, but it's slow going at the moment.  Cirt 08:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

January 16
 The Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956 was an Act of Congress passed to improve mental health care in the United States territory of Alaska. Introduced in the House of Representatives by Alaska Congressional Delegate Bob Bartlett, it became the focus of a major political controversy after opponents nicknamed it the "Siberia Bill" and denounced it as being part of a Communist plot to hospitalize and brainwash Americans. Campaigners asserted that it was part of an international Jewish, Roman Catholic or psychiatric conspiracy intended to establish United Nations-run concentration camps in the United States. It was eventually passed by the United States Senate despite the intense opposition of a variety of far-right, anti-Communist and fringe religious groups. (more…)

January 16th is the 52nd anniversary of the introduction of the AMHEA into Congress. The article has been waiting to be featured for some time, having been promoted in August 2007, and its imminent anniversary seems an opportune moment to do so. There are a few possible alternatives for the accompanying image, but the (copyright-expired) anti-mental health flyer shown in the article is probably the most immediately arresting. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added this TFA blurb from WP:TFA/R, for posterity. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

Word Usage 'skeet'
I can find no definition which would permit the use of the word 'skeet'in the opening sentence of this article. Mental health skeet? huh? If there is no objection I will remove it. Johnor (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind
Someone removed it Johnor (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bob Bartlett
Bartlett is not, to my knowledge, the longest serving US Senator, as he was only senator from 1959-1968. Am I misinterpreting this? If not, I will remove that bit. -69.127.18.205 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

small caps
Thanks a lot to all editors for all of this info. I have edited both secular antipsychiatric articles and CCHR-related articles and was unaware of the historical backgound of this Act.

There is such amount of vandalism going on that I don't dare to edit this article today.

However, THE CAPITAL LETTERS OF THE TELEGRAM FROM L. RON HUBBARD JR. would look better if they appear smaller in the article, just as I added to the capitals above.

—Cesar Tort 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. BTW, shouldn't "Title I" be capitalized? —Cesar Tort 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Title I is uncapitalized in the source document so I left it that way. Normally I would capitalize it and did so the first time I used it before I noticed what the source had. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Misc. OR and POV
Just a place to discuss any objections to my edits. It is OR and POV to make this "nanner nanner" point that Hubbard did not get involved in this until "almost two months after . . ." or whatever based on primary materials. Sorry coffeepusher, but that is a no-brainer and I doubt ChrisO would object to my position (or at least not much). --JustaHulk (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What was origonaly posted was:


 * "Contemporary Church publications suggest that Scientology did not even become involved in the controversy until the start of March 1956, over two months after the American Public Relations Forum had first publicized the bill." Which is correct, the memo wasn't published untill march.

What you changed it to was :


 * "Contemporary Church publications suggest that Hubbard was tracking progress of the bill at least as early as February 1956"


 * Which is slightly shadier because the memo said he was first informed of the bill in february...but that was the only information he had...I am not shure beeing told a bill exists qualifys as "Tracking progress".

In order to avoid dispute I changed it to:
 * "Contemporary Church publications suggest that although Hubbard was tracking progress of the bill at least as early as February 1956, Scientology did not become involved in the controversy until the start of March 1956, over two months after the American Public Relations Forum had first publicized the bill."


 * Which shows the accurate role the church played in the bill...they didn't start action as an orgonization untill March.

Please avoid the use of inflamitory terms in your edit summary's...the use of the word "Edit Waring" should be avoided at all costs especially when no contact has been attempted. its just bad mannors. Coffeepusher (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) OK, coffeepusher put this, "Scientology did not become involved in the controversy until the start of March 1956, over two months after the American Public Relations Forum had first publicized the bill." back in. Well, it is total OR based on scant primary sources (i.e. one source) but I already removed it once or twice and I won't continue an edit-war in a featured article that would also fall under Article Probation under the COFS arb ruling. So I has to leave it but another editor is free to make the appropriate adjustments. And coffeepusher, I don't mean to be rude and I apologize for my brusqueness. I see that you are editing in good faith but I still consider that bit to be clear OR. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * seeing as this is a very active article today, I definatly think that attempting to enforce my opinion is un-neccisary. I disagree with you, but I could be wrong as well.  Since we both agree to leave it up to other editors I think that either way, the correct thing will be done.  Coffeepusher (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions
Why were the fears of some people at the time so unreasonable, considering Japanese American internment? Why does the state, or territory, of Alaska need to own land to fund its mental health programs anyway? I don't think any other states do. 68.164.170.196 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hubbard et al
I found the lecture of Hubbard (RJ67) mentioned in the article. It is not about this bill, not even close. A section is on Youtube and the lecture has been leaked in other places. TaborG (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The bill is mentioned by Hubbard. "...the Siberia Bill which almost passed the House of Representatives in The United States - and did pass, if I remember rightly, the Senate - which gave the power to any Governor of any state in the United States, simply to pick up anyone on the street and send him to Alaska. We defeated this Siberia Bill and many other "mental health" (quote, unquote) acts of this character, but never really before knew from whom they were coming.". Question: I think it is OR to put this reference in the article. Does anyone have a better source? TaborG (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? It most definitely is about this bill. It was dubbed the "Siberia Bill" by its opponents, and the Scientology-published book Psychiatrists - the Men Behind Hitler goes into considerable detail about it. Some of that text appears on this Scientology web page which refers to the Alaska Mental Health Bill by name. Scientology glossaries include the following explanation for Hubbard's use of the term "Siberia Bill": "SIBERIA BILL: nickname for the Alaska Mental Health Act, introduced in the U.S. Congress in 1955. LRH called it the Siberia Bill because under its provisions any man, woman or child could be seized without trial and transferred to the million-acre mental-health facility which was to be established in Alaska, thus creating a "Siberia" in the U.S. It was largely through his efforts that the bill was defeated. - Editor." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read my correction above? We cannot use scientology.org as a primary source for this. And this lecture is shaky. I added more text now. TaborG (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Why can we not use scientology.org? (2) Hubbard calls it the "Siberia Bill" in multiple lectures and documents - the explanatory note I cited comes from the published hard-copy notes on the 16th Advanced Clinical Course lectures. (3) The complete quote from RJ67 reads:


 * ''Our enemies on this planet are less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains, and they are, oddly enough, directors in all the mental health groups in the world which have sprung up. Now these chaps are very interesting fellows: They have fantastically corrupt backgrounds; illegitimate children; government graft; a very unsavory lot. And they apparently, sometime in the rather distant past, had determined on a course of action. Being in control of most of the gold supplies of the planet, they entered upon a program of bringing every government to bankruptcy and under their thumb, so that no government would be able to act politically without their permission.


 * The rest of their apparent program was to use mental health - which is to say, psychiatric electric shock and prefrontal lobotomy - to remove from their path any political dissenters. They were the people behind the Siberia bill, which almost passed the House of Representatives in the United States, and did pass, if I remember rightly, the Senate, which gave the power to any governor in -- of any state in the United States simply to pick up anyone on the street and send him to Alaska. We defeated this Siberia bill and many other mental health quote-unquote "acts" of this character, but never really before knew from whom they were coming.''


 * Note that in the second paragraph, Hubbard is clearly saying that the Siberia Bill was the work of the "less than twelve men" he identifies as enemies. I've expanded the quote to provide more on Hubbard's conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

sic
I must say, though, that when that bill was killed in Congress, [sic]

Why the "sic"? I would have removed it, but I thought I might be missing something. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The bill wasn't killed in Congress. It's part of the Scientology mythology that a great uprising of Scientologists killed the bill, but in fact it passed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what sic is for. Nobody would think that there had been a transcription error.  Pointing out that the bill wasn't actually killed probably makes sense, but I've removed this misused sic. 209.190.232.130 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No claim of Catholic involvement
The lead says "Campaigners asserted that it was part of an international Jewish, Roman Catholic or psychiatric conspiracy intended to establish United Nations-run concentration camps in the United States." Nowhere in main text is it stated that anyone believed the act was a Roman Catholic conspiracy. The word 'catholic' does not appear in the 'Sound the alarm' section. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to 'Jesuit' as such a claim is specifically made. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See later info, in article body text, on Holdridge. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which text specifically? The text describing ' the anti-Catholic former US Army Brigadier', or the text quoting Holdridge on 'the black forces of the Jesuits', or a different part of the text?  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Those parts. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Holdridge was anti-Catholic, that doesn't mean that he believed that everything he was opposed to was a Catholic conspiracy. If he believed the act to be a Jesuit conspiracy the lead should simply say 'Jesuit', not 'Catholic'. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "black forces of the Jesuits who dominate the Vatican"... = both link back to Catholic Church. Cirt (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments
"On June 6, 1900, the United States Congress enacted a law permitting the government of the then District of Alaska to provide mental health care for Alaskans." Readers may develop the impression that mental health care was the exclusive focus of this legislation. If that's the case, that needs to be spelled out in greater detail. I don't believe that was the case, however. The above date was when Congress passed one of several organic acts establishing a legal framework for Alaska, which led up to the actual establishment of the Territory some years later. For example, I believe this was the same legislation in which Alaskan communities were legally able to incorporate as municipalities for the first time, and that the civil and/or criminal laws of Oregon were put into place in Alaska.

The following sentences mention Morningside Hospital. Some additional background was that Morningside enjoyed the exclusive right to house patients committed by Alaska under this arrangement for over a half century. Except for municipal magistrates who dealt exclusively with local ordinances, the United States territorial court was the sole judiciary in Alaska, with only 4 judges for all of Alaska plus a larger number of U.S. Commissioners. For most of its existence, Morningside's patients were overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, from Alaska. Stories abound, not only anecdotally but in published form, of commitments being made (even if for life) on little more than hearsay. There has also been a tendency to point out an overwhelming number of commitments of Alaska Natives in many places, and the belief that in most cases, these individuals did not understand the gravity of the situation they were facing. There is a Morningside research project, which was advertising its work at a conference I attended a little over a year ago. No one was around to talk to about it when I looked over their display. I developed the impression that they had either published something or were on the verge of doing so.

One more thing, which may not necessarily relate to this, is that in the latter days of the territory, its health department was overwhelmingly the largest aspect of territorial government, in terms of budget/employees/reach/services rendered. In fact, the Alaska Office Building, which sits kitty corner to the Territorial Building (or present-day Alaska State Capitol), was constructed in 1950 solely to house the health department. I've yet to read anything which establishes a connection between this fact and any push within Alaska to pass this legislation in Congress, but it may be worth investigating.

"In 1978, the Alaska Legislature passed a law to abolish the trust and transfer the most valuable parcels of lands to private individuals and the government. By 1982, 40,000 acres had been conveyed to municipalities" I'm pretty sure these two are connected. I may be wrong, but I believe that 1978 was when the legislature set up the framework to transfer land to organized boroughs. I don't believe that the land was entirely mental health lands, but perhaps also lands transferred to the state under the Alaska Statehood Act.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to back up "The resulting drop in funding led to a severe effect on the provision of mental health care in Alaska".
Go look at the state budgets for the years before 1978 and the years after. You won't see a great fall off. The mental health lands were in state hands, there was no separate Mental Health Trust then - which means the income from them went through the state budgeting process - capital and operating. In Alaska in 1978 well over ninety-five percent of the land was government-owned, (with the exception of native land claims lands transfered to village and regional corporations with was much like government lands.) And back in the late fifties, early sixties, when the Mental Health lands selections were made,  just about all land was owned by the federal government. (There was a little bit of homesteaded, or mining claim land, a few other kinds of grants, but in comparison to the size of the state, those were negligible. Soviet Russia had something like twice the percentage of private land ownership that Alaska had.)  When Alaska had the opportunity to select lands for the Mental Health trust, they selected the choicest, best land available, most of it close to cities and some of it in quarter-acre city lots. Thereafter the trust lands sort of sat there, not really used for much of anything. Alaska has always lacked privately owned land and particularly felt it around that tie. Federal land was completely tied up (still is, really, unavailable except for wilderness use and some legacy oil leasing) and the federal government refused to let the State land selections go forward (still does.) So the Mental Health lands represented a pretty substantial part of land which the state could transfer to municipalities or otherwise bring into productive use. If those lands has been put to productive use - if it has actually been producing a stream of income to fund mental health activities - it would not have been such an attractive target. It was not. The statement that "The resulting drop in funding led to a severe effect on the provision of mental health care in Alaska." is completely false from my observation. If you want to include it, you need to include some citations - to the Alaska operating and capital budgets for the years before and after 1978. The law transfering the land out of Mental Health designation was stupid, but was not venal, as you suggest. Hypercallipygian (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence from the lead and asked for a citation in the body for this claim. I didn't read your entire comment, however. Thanks for raising the issue. Biosthmors (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017171204/http://www.mhtrust.org/index.cfm/About-Us/Trust-History to http://www.mhtrust.org/index.cfm/About-Us/Trust-History
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103144259/http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/rights.htm to http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/rights.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821083414/http://www.yukonpresbytery.com/YukonPresbytery/SpecialMinistries/HealthCare.htm to http://yukonpresbytery.com/YukonPresbytery/SpecialMinistries/HealthCare.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/8030

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026002201/http://www.dianetics.org/html/en_US/istore/section/index.html?minisite=10041&section=10370 to http://www.dianetics.org/html/en_US/istore/section/index.html?minisite=10041&section=10370

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)